No doubt you are also aware of Dragon’s Crown, the jawdroppingly gorgeous high definition, hand painted 2D brawler from Vanillaware most infamous for its chesty sorceress. Indeed it was only a matter of time before the two collided.

See, back when Dragon’s Crown was first announced, it was considered okay. We saw the over-the-top character designs and said “Wow those sure are over-the-top!” but continued to drool over the amazing game. It was the kind of thing that we always wanted but never thought could exist. Because, back in the 90s the beat ’em up genre vanished right as it was hitting it’s stride, stunting the…

I took a break from blogging about Mass Effect 3 until there was news about the additional content BioWare had planned. No use in wasting time speculating when there wasn’t any information to be found about what BioWare was planning. Suffice to say, things have gone from bad to worse.

REDWOOD CITY, Calif.–(BUSINESS WIRE)–BioWare, a Label of Electronic Arts Inc. announced Mass Effect™ 3: Extended Cut, a downloadable content pack that will expand upon the events at the end of the critically acclaimed Action RPG. Through additional cinematic sequences and epilogue scenes, the Mass Effect 3: Extended Cut will give fans seeking further clarity to the ending of Mass Effect 3 deeper insights into how their personal journey concludes. Coming this summer, the Mass Effect 3: Extended Cut will be available for download on the Xbox 360® videogame and entertainment system, PlayStation®3 computer entertainment system and PC for no extra charge*.

“We are all incredibly proud of Mass Effect 3 and the work done by Casey Hudson and team,” said Dr. Ray Muzyka, Co-Founder of BioWare and General Manager of EA’s BioWare Label. “Since launch, we have had time to listen to the feedback from our most passionate fans and we are responding. With the Mass Effect 3: Extended Cut we think we have struck a good balance in delivering the answers players are looking for while maintaining the team’s artistic vision for the end of this story arc in the Mass Effect universe.”

Casey Hudson, Executive Producer of the Mass Effect series added, “We have reprioritized our post-launch development efforts to provide the fans who want more closure with even more context and clarity to the ending of the game, in a way that will feel more personalized for each player.”

The Mass Effect franchise is one of the most highly decorated series in the history of games, having earned over 250 awards from critics around the world. Mass Effect 3 launched last month to universal critical acclaim, receiving over 75 perfect scores. For more information on Mass Effect 3, please visit http://masseffect.com, follow the game on Twitter at http://twitter.com/masseffect or “like” the game on Facebook at http://facebook.com/masseffect. Press assets for Mass Effect 3 are available at http://www.info.ea.com.

An official press release went out today announcing how we are re-prioritizing the Mass Effect 3 post release content schedule to provide a more fleshed out experience for our fans. For many of you the “Extended Cut” will help answer some questions and give closure to this chapter of the Mass Effect story. Oh and it’s at no cost to you – the fan.

Here is a mini FAQ to help you understand what the Mass Effect 3: Extended Cut is and isn’t:

What can fans expect from the Extended Cut DLC?

For fans who want more closure in Mass Effect 3, the DLC will offer extended scenes that provide additional context and deeper insight to the conclusion of Commander Shepard’s journey.

Are there going to be more/different endings or ending DLCs in the future?

No. BioWare strongly believes in the team’s artistic vision for the end of this arc of the Mass Effect franchise. The extended cut DLC will expand on the existing endings, but no further ending DLC is planned.

What is BioWare adding to the ending with the Extended Cut DLC?

BioWare will expanding on the ending to Mass Effect 3 by creating additional cinematics and epilogue scenes to the existing ending sequences. The goal of these new scenes is to provide additional clarity and closure to Mass Effect 3.

When will the Extended Cut DLC be available?

Currently the Extended Cut DLC is planned for this summer, no specific date has been announced at this point.

Why are you releasing the Extended Cut DLC?

Though we remain committed and are proud of the artistic choices we made in the main game, we are aware that there are some fans who would like more closure to Mass Effect 3. The goal of the DLC is not to provide a new ending to the game, rather to offer fans additional context and answers to the end of Commander Shepard’s story.

Will there be more Mass Effect 3 DLC?

More content is being planned and we will release information at a later date.

So there you have it. Are we proud of the game we made and the team that made it? Hell yes. Are we going to change the ending of the game? No. Do we appreciate the passion and listen to the feedback delivered to us by our fans? Very much so and we are responding.

Summer is coming…

It’s clear that, despite what Dr. Ray Muzyka said, BioWare didn’t listen to fan feedback. Mass Effect fans, particularly those involved with ‘Retake Mass Effect’, were loud and clear as to what they wanted, new endings which reflected the choices they made throughout the Mass Effect series. They were even willing to pay handsomely for these new endings. Instead, BioWare decided that “artistic integrity” meant more to them than pleasing their fans. As an added insult, they justify their decision by pointing to the 75 perfect scores Mass Effect 3 received from now-discredited reviewers.

The stupidity of all this is mind-boggling. There could literally be volumes written about the ongoing public relations nightmare EA and BioWare are suffering through. “Winning” the “Worst Company in America” award from the Consumerist should have been a wake-up call for EA, it should have kept them and BioWare from releasing a statement which serves only to make their predicament worse. This is exactly what happens when companies don’t listen to fan feedback. What’s even worse is that neither seem able to grasp as to why they’re in this situation.

Do I have any sympathy for either company? No. EA’s questionable business practices of late have earned them a poor reputation and Consumerist’s “Worst Company in America” award. BioWare, on the other hand, betrayed their fans for the sake of their “artistic integrity.” This announcement won’t get disappointed gamers to buy additional content for Mass Effect 3, nor will it help sell the game itself, no matter how low the price is now (the Walmart in my area has the Playstation 3 version for a mere $29.99 and it’s not even been out for a full month yet). It doesn’t matter that this additional content is free when it’s exactly what the vast majority of fans didn’t want. All this announcement does is show why EA and BioWare deserved to be in this situation.

UPDATE: The more and more I think about this, the more frustrated I get. The sheer arrogance of this decision is infuriating. Mass Effect fans were loud and clear as to what they wanted, and it wasn’t “clarity and closure.” Since this backlash began last month, the vast majority of fans have stated that they want endings which reflected the choices they made throughout the Mass Effect series. They were even to pay handsomely for these new endings. Why would BioWare, knowing all this, refuse to even acknowledge that they made a mistake with Mass Effect 3 endings, let alone change them?

Clinging to “artistic integrity” will not change the fact that Mass Effect 3 isn’t selling. Units shipped aren’t games sold as store shelves are filled with unsold copies that gamers are refusing to buy, even at it’s substantially discounted price. From a business standpoint, it makes no sense to spend money developing content that doesn’t address the main problem with this game. If they will not fix the game’s endings, they should abandon Mass Effect 3 entirely. It’s possible that BioWare could salvage the Mass Effect series by telling fans what their plans are for future games. That being said, I really don’t see how there can be another Mass Effect game considering that Mass Effect 3, as of now, is an expensive failure.

I could go on and on about how confusing and infuriating this whole mess is, but for my own sanity, I will stop for now. It’s better to spend my time with games I enjoy rather than wasting it discussing one I don’t.

Here’s a video from Will Bill for America. It’s not a long video, but Bill point out something myself and others have missed.

It’s not simply hatred of the capitalist system that drives these protesters, it’s their own greed. Whether it’s money taken from the holdings of large corporations or from our wallets, they want whatever they can get their hands on. Simply put, thievery is their political philosophy.

As Bill said, the problem with this kind of greed is that it leads to violence. We’ve already seen that the ‘Occupy’ protesters aren’t afraid to attack police, so how long will it be before they start getting violent with the rest of us? It might come to that soon…

While I wasn’t able to get to the theatre last Friday for the opening Green Lantern, starring Ryan Reynolds, I was able to make time to see it today with my brother. Despite the negative reviews, I was surprised at how well-done it was, and how much I enjoyed watching it. After watching such a film, I always find myself wondering why a person like myself enjoys it while critics wouldn’t. It’s understandable that we all have different tastes and that not everyone will enjoy what I enjoy, but sometimes it goes beyond these simple differences into something more.

IGN’s review of the film was so off-base that one has to ask themselves whether or not the reviewer watched the same movie or watched the movie at all. It is so inconsistent with what I saw that is was obvious that this review was a hit piece. Simply put, they went in looking for problems and made up, if not downright lied, about what was in the movie. It’s obvious that the review is a deeply obsessed Marvel fanatic who’s unable to accept that not only was Green Lantern a good movie, but an enjoyable one.

In order to understand this, let’s breakdown IGN’s gripes with the film. Beware though as this review does contain spoilers.

The Corps Are Wasted – All GL’s script does is show Sinestro as someone whom the Corps look up to and respect, someone who can galvanize them. And during this, not once is Sinestro portrayed as someone with ulterior motives or a villainous agenda. It’s as if the movie let a big chunk of his turn to the dark side happen off-screen, but it would have been a better a movie had we seen parts of it.

How cool would it have been to see Sinestro, someone the Corps looks up to with great regard, get upstaged by this “unworthy” human, and then turn his back on the Guardians and all he has served because A) Parallax is the Guardians’ fault and B) why do we need Sinestro when we have Hal Jordan?

Sinestro wants to destroy fear with fear, and pushes for a yellow ring to be forged. And that’s his only motive in the movie for doing so – to fight the good fight. Therefore, the direction Sinestro takes at the end is unwarranted and not set up. The end credits scene is a wasted and unmotivated coda that only exists to provide the thinnest of springboards for a sequel.

Aside from poor grammar (‘is’ not ‘are’ as the Corps is a single entity), this is utter nonsense. When Hal Jordan arrives at Oa, the audience is treated to a very highly detailed planet, as well as the thousands of different GL Corps members who inhabit it. Though the audience is only introduced to three Corps members (Tomar Re, Kilowag and Sinestro), you are left feeling that there are many of colourful and well-defined characters within this fighting force.

As for the Corps not doing much, where should I start? With the fact that the Guardians planned to abandon Earth to its fate? That Sinestro lead a squad of GLs against Parallax that was wiped out? It’s part of the plot that Hal would have to deal with this on his own, as GLs usually do. Once again, you get the feeling that this reviewer was either watching a different movie or hadn’t picked up a GL comic for the last decade or so.

Parallax – Giant Diarrhea Space Cloud? – When it comes to depicting the more outlandish comic book villains in live-action ,sometimes less is more. As much as fans may have complained about Galactus’ portrayal in Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer, it’s hard to argue that a giant man in a purple hat was a better and more convincing approach than a vague monster shrouded in space dust.

That lesson wasn’t applied to Parallax. This living embodiment of fear was very “in your face” in the climax of the movie. But somehow the creature’s mystique was lost in translation. Rather than the glowing yellow monster of the comics, Parallax was a floating diarrhea cloud. How can you be afraid of something when its very appearance makes you stifle a laugh? To add insult to injury, the writers combined the characters Parallax and Krona into one villain, thereby robbing future sequels of a potentially awesome conflict.

Frankly, Parallax is at his best when he possesses characters and warps their appearance and personality. What you can’t see is always more frightening than what you can. As with Galactus, that sort of less is more approach should have been adopted.

Parallax isn’t a “giant diarrhea space cloud,” and if this reviewer had been paying attention, he/she would have been honest about it. While the story behind Parallax differs from the source material, it was a welcomed change. In the movie, Parallax is a possessed Guardian who’s powers increase with each victim. This power is shown to the audience as a massive debris field that appears more like an octopus than fecal matter. Just as a tornado picks up debris, as Parallax destroys worlds and murders its citizens, not only does its power increase, but so does this debris field. It’s believable that something comparable to a force of nature would take such a shape, so what’s the issue? If Parallax’s shape was such a sticking point, why wasn’t IGN upset about how Galactus was portrayed in the second Fantastic Four movie? They were nearly identical, but I guess only Marvel is allowed “giant diarrhea space clouds” eh?

Sinestro Doesn’t Do Much – The complicated relationship between Hal Jordan and Sinestro is one of the driving forces of the GL comics. Sinestro began as Hal’s mentor and the most respected member of the Corps, but his willingness to control others through fear led to his downfall and the two former friends became bitter enemies. These days, Sinestro is the leader of his own Lantern Corps – one fueled by the yellow-colored power of fear.

The film series seems to want to follow that path. The problem is that GL glossed over much of Sinestro’s story. By the time he claims the yellow ring during the end credits, viewers have had very little indication Sinestro has been corrupted by fear. If anything, it seemed as though Hal had convinced Sinestro not to claim the ring. Sinestro’s corruption is a plot point the film should have hinged on. And no matter how well the character is handled in his transition to villain in the sequel, the crucial setup phase was blundered.

Sinestro doesn’t do much because Sinestro isn’t the star of the film. In fact, considering that Sinestro is a minor character in this story, I am baffled that this was a criticism at all with all the screen time he got. Sinestro is shown reporting to the Guardians on the release of Parallax, a few minutes later he is shown giving the report on Abin Sur’s death, then he’s there to talk to the Guardians about Parallax, etc. At every plot point throughout the film you see Sinestro updating the Guardians or butting heads with Hal Jordan. All this attention definitely suggested to the audience that this character would be important in upcoming movies.

On that point, anyone who was paying attention to Sinestro throughout the film knew what was going to happen next. You see how angry he is with the Guardians, his own fear that the GL ring isn’t strong enough, etc and when a the yellow ring was forged, considering the way Sinestro was acting after Hal’s victory, it was obvious what was going to come next. In fact, that minor plot would have felt meaningless without that scene afters the credits. Once again, was the reviewer even paying attention?

The CG Fails the Story’s Scope – From a technical perspective, Green Lantern is an ambitious film. Far from showcasing the usual earthbound super-heroics, it depicts an entire galaxy full of ring-wielding heroes from countless alien worlds. But the reach of the film’s ambition far exceeded the grasp of its CG capabilities. Green Lantern simply didn’t look as impressive as its universe deserves.

Art design was one flaw. The filmmakers took a number of liberties with the look of the Green Lanterns, the architecture of Oa and other elements. The second-skin look of the costumes was interesting, but ultimately the simpler approach in the comics just looks better.

The larger problem with the CG was that it never looked very convincing. Hal stood out awkwardly from his CG costume. Many of the aliens were surreal to the point of looking fake. It’s enough to wonder if the filmmakers would have been better off creating Green Lantern as an entirely CG film, like Beowulf or Polar Express. At least then the universe would have looked more cohesive.

The CGI was incredible, and the constructs were so varied, from a toy race car track to a pool of water, I was amazed at how well it was put together. I was at first unsure as to how you could show a GL’s power on screen, but it worked. Even the CGI suit was impressive on screen, despite my own concerns and this reviewers gripes about it. Knowing the source material, it made more sense to have the suit as CGI than otherwise. It wasn’t perfect, but far better than I expected, and far better than anyone could imagine after reading this hit piece.

As for this criticism about taking liberties with the source material, what of it? As in all superhero movies, there is a considerable amount of difference between the source material and the film adaptation. Whether it is the architecture or the appearance of the various alien species, considering how that the source material is a comic book, how are they to bring these to life without making changes? As for this criticism that the aliens themselves look to surreal, look at the source material itself. The vast majority of the aliens in the comic book, as well as the Bruce Timm animated shows and movies, are surreal. It is easy to see that this reviewer is simply looking for excuses to dislike the film.

Hector Hammond – WTF? – Hector Hammond isn’t necessarily one of the most well-known or beloved Green Lantern villains, although the comics have worked to change that in recent years. Regardless, Hammond is a character who deserved much better than what the film had to offer him.

The best villains all have personal ties to their heroic enemies, and Hammond is no different. In the comics, Hammond craves the life of adventure, excitement, and love that Hal Jordan enjoys. He’s a character ruled by greed, not fear. Unfortunately, the movie more or less ignored these fundamental aspects. The result was that Hammond was little more than a walking plot device that chewed scenery and heralded the coming of Parallax.

In my opinion, Hector Hammond is a horrible character. That isn’t the fault of this movie, but the source material itself which is half a century old. Back in 1961 when he was created, I doubt the writers could ever have dreamed of villains like Parallax and the Sinestro Corps, as well as the huge assortment of villains Hal has fought over the years that puts this C-list character to shame. Though revised, powered up and thrown at other GLs since his creation, Hammond is still a poorly designed character. If anything, this film makes him appear far more interesting than his C-list comic book inspiration.

A Blow to DC’s Movie Plans – GL is Warner Bros.’ first attempt at truly embracing a comic book property’s roots. It was expected to do for DC what Iron Man did for Marvel, and usher in a new, lighter more Marvel-esque movie era for DC in a post-Nolan Batman world.

The exact opposite happened. Ryan Reynolds, who many fans of the comic believed was not the right choice for Hal, is one of the film’s few strong points. Reynolds’ Hal and Blake Lively’s Carol do not fail the movie, the movie fails them. It also fails fans who wanted to celebrate the movie beyond the fact that a movie about intergalactic space cops and their jewelry exists.

Green Lantern’s creative shortcomings and negative criticisms will affect plans not only for this franchise, but for others – especially Warners’ JLA movie, slated for 2013, and their Batman reboot. Moreover, on a macro level, reaction to GL will impact other studios with similar-minded properties in development; studios will become gun-shy to pull the trigger on those projects based on one movie’s misfire. The best thing about GL is the fact that it got made. The fact that “will-powered rings this” and “yellow impurity that” can become a big-screen reality just 10 years after the first X-Men movie was considered a gamble is a big leap forward. It will be a sad time when (not if) the industry lets this movie’s failures detour the chances of potential successes waiting to get made.

It’s too early to track all of the fallout from GL, but we can see the mushroom cloud rising. Expect a “mea culpa” down the line from the studio – maybe from even Geoff Johns himself, who spearheaded this project as DC Entertainment’s Chief Creative Officer. It will be the usual, kid-gloves response about how “we missed the boat on a lot of things with GL, but we’ll get it right with a reboot!” And all that does is prepare us for the fact that what they got wrong the first time they may get wrong again.

If this reviewer was trying to appear unbiased in his/her criticism, it is this criticism which makes it obviously that he/she was anything but. A blow to DC’s movie plans? How so? Last time I checked, they didn’t kill off Hal Jordan or any other important character in this film to make further films more difficult. This is hardly the case with Marvel’s X-Men franchise as Scott Summers a.k.a. Cyclops, a character who is the linchpin for the vast majority of X-Men stories, was killed off in the third X-Men film. This film was simply a way of introducing audiences to Green Lantern. It’s clear that there will be sequels to this film as the ending hints at just that.

As for DC’s other plans, what of them? A Batman reboot isn’t affected by this film’s success. The Batman franchise, as indicated by the success of the last two films, is very profitable venture no matter what other superhero films are out, whether they are DC or Marvel. A new Superman series could be the same as his following is just as strong and fans have been demanding a reboot of the series after the last film tried to continue the story of the Christopher Reeve’s movies. It maybe that DC would be concerned about other characters, but any decent film with Batman, Superman or both will make money.

On that note, if this reviewer was so concerned about how Green Lantern’s success would affect other DC movies, why haven’t these questions been asked about Marvel’s movies? Let’s not forget that Iron Man was the first real success Marvel had that was comparable to DC’s success with Batman Begins, and that came after a slew of terrible films. Has this reviewer already forgotten about the Hulk and Ghost Rider?

In conclusion, I have a hard time trusting movies reviews. Unless there is something seriously wrong with the film, like disturbing content, poor editing, etc it’s best to pay the ticket price to see it for yourself. Simply put, ignore this review, as well as others done by Marvel fanatics, and be your own critic.

Being a Star Wars fan, I really enjoyed the first commercial. Being a Transformers fan, I was a bit worried that this would be the only advertisement for the next film, Transformers: Dark of the Moon. Oh how wrong I was…

It wasn’t just the new Transformers movie that was being advertised. There were many other commercials for movies, but, being a Captain America fan, I was really looking forward to this one.

I have been following the news on Captain America: The First Avenger, so I’m glad it looks as good as it does. This is, however, just a movie trailer and I reserve my judgment until I see the final product.

At the end of the first half, Germany’s Mesut Ozil was on a break, beating Sergio Ramos, but before he could take his shot, the young German was taken down.

Dirty play from Ramos doesn’t surprise me. Having watched his performances in previous games, like the match against Paraguay, I knew he was a dirty player. The problem is that Victor Kassai, the game’s referee, didn’t see any problem. This nonsense continued throughout the match. I actually felt physically ill watching Spain get free kick after free kick. I don’t mind watching my team lose against a better team, but when the loss comes due to poor reffing and poor sportsmanship (Spain in this case, Italy in 2006), I am infuriated.

While Portugal and Italy are known for taking dives, Spain’s performance this tournament puts Azzurri’s 2006 World Cup performance to shame. That’s saying a lot considering the scandal that erupted immediately following Italy’s World Cup win. Kassai should have paid attention to what Spain were doing, especially with what they had been doing throughout this tournament. While it has become a running joke on the internet, Fernado Torres’ dive the in Chile game was no laughing matter to the South Americans. They were unable to mount a comeback (they came within one goal with only ten men) as Marco Estrada was red carded because of Torres’ disgraceful performance.

It is just disgusting when the “beautiful game” is reduced to this kind of nonsense. Before taking down Ozil, Ramos not only stepped down on Lucas Podolski’s ankle (should have been a yellow card), but had dove twice when he was unable to beat Jérôme Boateng. Suffice to say, his performance wasn’t convincing enough, even for Kassai who definitely seemed to be calling the game in Spain’s favour. It was Ramos’ teammate, Andrés Iniesta’s performance against not only Boateng, but another German defender, which gave Spain two free kicks, the latter which set up the corner that won the game. Iniesta is also well known for his antics on the field, so much so that he has drawn criticism from former teammate Cristiano Ronaldo, another well known diver. Even Spain’s David Villa wasn’t immune to this nonsense, taking a dive early in the second half after numerous failed attempts to get past the German defenders. While Kassai didn’t award a free kick for Villa’s efforts, he also didn’t card Spain’s top goal scorer for this disgraceful act. Looking at how defensive the Germans were playing towards the end of the game, one wonders if their lack of aggression was due to fears of being carded as even the slightest questionable action awarded Spain a free kick. This, however, was only half the story of this game.

While I will admit Germany didn’t play as aggressively as they did against both England and Argentina, when they did have possession, far too often it ended as Spain’s defenders brought down German attacker after German attacker. During the 86th minute of play, not one but two German forwards were physically brought down within the penalty box. Kassai called for the play to continue, almost leading to a second Spain goal. Time and time again, German aggression was met by one uncalled foul after another. It became so bad that by the end of the game, midfielder Bastian Schweinsteiger looked utterly confused and downright upset, nearly losing his patience with Kassai after Spain was awarded a corner kick which should have been a Germany goal kick. After his poor performance in the USA versus Ghana match earlier this tournament (Ghana were throwing elbows all tournament and very rarely were they called on it), Kassai didn’t deserve to be reffing, especially not a semifinals game.

All in all, this loss demonstrates to me why I have not, and probably will not be a serious FIFA fan. Bad sportsmanship, bad reffing and the celebration of mediocrity (Iniesta and Torres have not preformed at all this tournament, yet they are adored for this nonsense) disgusts me to the point where I can’t enjoy the game. This is one reason I don’t watch Major League Baseball, but in the defense of “America’s past time”, I have never seen officiating this bad from even the worst of umpires. Knowing how corrupt FIFA has become in the last few years, FIFA Italia especially, it wouldn’t surprise me if there was something crooked going on during this match. In my opinion, Kassai shouldn’t have gotten the nod to ref this game considering his poor performance earlier this tournament and the biases held by European refs against Germany. Why was a European ref even picked for this game? A ref from another region surely wouldn’t have been this biased. The problem is that this kind nonsense that many soccer fans have come to expect though.

I don’t blame any German fan for losing his temper after watching this game as there is a definite reason for it. Once again, getting beat by a better team is acceptable, but being beaten by a cheating team with referee assistance is infuriating. Until this kind of nonsense is addressed, the “beautiful game” will not live up to its reputation. Disgraceful.

Here’s a little laugh for those German fans who need cheering up, via MagnificentGaol…

UPDATE: Before people comment about how Torres’ dive was simply an “isolated incident” and that Spain played “cleanly” most of the time, here’s a similar performance from Joan Capdevila which resulted in Ricardo Costa of Portugal receiving a red card.

Being one player down, Portugal was denied a comeback after David Villa offside goal and lost the match. Today, Germany became another victim of Spain’s unsportsmanlike conduct. Pathetic.

With the release of Red Dead Redemption, the controversy about the game’s production has heated up. Gamasutra’s published a letter from the spouses of Rockstar Games San Deigo employees earlier this year, stating, among other things, that “the extent of degradation employees have suffered extends to their quality of life and their family members”. After sorting through this letter, I find that many of the claims made by Rockstar employee spouses are vague, exaggerated, and downright inflammatory. Considering that all types of work, be it full-time or part-time, are less than enjoyable, I have a hard time taking it seriously, especially with these absurd claims that the treatment the employees have received has effected their quality of life and driven many to contemplate suicide.

In my employment experience, I have been subjected to unsafe working conditions, harassment and intimidation from both co-workers and management, even being wrongfully terminated, and all of this before leaving Canada to teach in Nantong, China. Even with the Rockstar paying $2.75 million in an out of court settlement following previous complaints, considering that the case was about unpaid overtime (even I have been denied overtime pay), I have yet to find any reason to feel sympathetic to employees of one of the biggest developers in gaming today. If these employees truly felt abused, why not leave the company? They wouldn’t be hard pressed to find new employment when their resume includes work on the top selling titles of the last few years.

Red Dead Redemption came out last week and while I know I’m going to buy it, I’d be lying if I said I wasn’t somewhat hesitant to do so.

It seems the controversy is now mostly forgotten, but in January, the spouses of a number of Rockstar San Diego developers penned an open letter decrying the working conditions in the studio. Reminiscent of the then unnamed Erin Hoffman’s EA Spouse letter, it details conditions that grossly overreach the usual game development crunch time. And of course, the response from Rockstar HQ and Take 2 was typical mealy-mouthed PR bullshit. While I’m sure plenty of other games I have enjoyed were made under similar conditions to Red Dead Redemption and simply didn’t receive public outcry, a pall is still cast over RDR that it won’t ever be able to fully shake, at least for me.

Hearing the alleged conditions in Rockstar San Diego were also unfortunately familiar; by several accounts, Bully was created at Rockstar Vancouver under very similar conditions. And even though I quite enjoyed Bully, I couldn’t help but feel a little … uncomfortable about it. It was that same twinge of discomfort you get seeing “Made in Bangladesh” on the tag of your shirt. I don’t mean to pick on Rockstar, I’m sure this is a problem at many studios, but you know, they did pay out almost $3 million after a lawsuit was filed by employees about a year ago.

While I’m being facetious about the idea of “fair trade” certification for games, even if such a thing could exist, I’m not sure something like it would actually be desirable. The purpose of fair trade is to avoid purchasing goods produced in unfair conditions. But if I had slaved away on a game, seeing it sell poorly because consumers disagreed with the conditions it was made in would only be adding insult to injury.

And of course, I don’t think it’s very risky to say most of the potential audience really doesn’t care. Most are simply unaware of such circumstances at all and of the small percentage that are, many seem to have the perverse and naive attitude that being a game developer is some invaluable gift. Once this legendary position has been obtained, all expectations of fair and decent working conditions evaporate.

A couple choice comments from the Shacknews post about this: “Come to NY and see who cries for you.” “Oh please. These guys have the best jobs in the world and they love doing it. Have a problem with it? DON’T MARRY THEM.” “This sucks, but god damn those screens look good.”

Unfortunately, this attitude exists even in some new entrants to the industry. Willing to do virtually anything to “break in,” their enthusiasm results in a seemingly unending supply for the digital salt mines. Eventually circumstances like the above burn them out and they leave for good, resulting in less than one third of developers making it to ten years in the industry.

And I have no idea what to do about it. It seems buying Red Dead Redemption is better than not doing so in protestation, but good sales likely aren’t going to inspire change at Rockstar San Diego. More likely, a good swath of people will leave, replacements will be brought in and things will get as bad again the next time a project is well behind schedule. I do not think the solution is a union, as I’m very skeptical of a union ever being a good idea for knowledge workers. The great, bloated beasts SAG and the WGA have become certainly give me little hope.

The only thing I can do, personally, is refuse to ever work at a studio that operates under such conditions and strongly council others to do the same. If great, experienced developers will only operate at studios with respectful, fair working conditions, and they make this known, that might incentivize certain changes. The passion people have to making games is also a great weakness, because it can be exploited. Game developers will tolerate conditions I can’t imagine someone making accounting software ever would. We cannot allow our passion to be taken advantage of.

I really hope Red Dead Redemption is a big success, both in terms of quality and sales. It’s better condolence than the alternative. It sure sounds like its creators were asked to give far too much and there’s a part of me that will feel a little guilty enjoying the game because of it. I long for the day when developers’ passion will be respected rather than exploited, but honestly, I don’t know how soon that day will come. Not soon enough, I think.

Let me start by saying that I am not a supporter of “fair trade”. Not only does it distort pricing, creating excess supply, but with the drop in demand due to the higher prices, it does more to hurt those it claims to help in the long run. It is the product of guilt-ridden “elites” who aren’t satisfied with paying competitive prices for what they consider “ill-gotten” goods, and because of it, consumers and supplies suffer. Turning to Nels’ article, suggesting that consumers boycott game companies that “exploit” their workers leads to only one outcome; the increase in game prices and the decrease in game development. It would be akin to unionizing the gaming labour force, something Nels says he is skeptical of, leading to same short comings that we see in the auto industry with automakers like General Motors that are being forced to produce inferior quality vehicles at prices higher than their competition. I am further dumbfound by Nels’ remarks considering that Rockstar Games San Deigo employees not only produced a noticeably inferior product on the Playstation 3, but a game that is heavily glitched on both systems. This kind of laziness shouldn’t be rewarded, nor should these employees be treated like victims if they can’t produce quality games after more than five years of development.

Let’s not pretend this is some sort of non-biased account of what has happened at Rockstar Games San Diego. Nels alerts his readers to his anti-corporate/anti-Rockstar Games bias with statements like “the response from Rockstar HQ and Take 2 was typical mealy-mouthed PR bullshit” and “many seem to have the perverse and naive attitude that being a game developer is some invaluable gift”. His second statement is particularly dumbfounding because being a game developer is to many, including myself, an invaluable gift. The gaming industry is very competitive, and many people are forced to seek work in other game markets, if they are even lucky enough to get that since the positions in North America are hard to come by. This statement is akin to a professional athlete complaining about his/her troubles, unaware of the millions of individuals who would give anything to have their life. Nels can complain about how he wants studios to operate with “respectful, fair working conditions”, but the truth is that the gaming market has become very competitive and the feelings of a few workers will be sacrificed if not doing so will cost companies like Rockstar Games money, which in turn costs jobs. The truth of this point is that Nels refuses to acknowledge that game developing is a business and that, for the most part, should be run like a business. As hard as that may be to accept, this is the reality of the matter since “happiness and pleasant thoughts” won’t pay bills.

Let’s stop pretending this is about working conditions. Rockstar Games San Diego is a far cry from Foxconn in Shenzhen, China where people are committing suicide due to what apparently is poor working conditions. Notice how he doesn’t write about the fact that Foxconn, who makes parts for Apple, Dell and HP computers, might ACTUALLY be treating their employees in the way he and others depict Rockstar Games San Diego’s treatment of its staff. Why doesn’t he want “fair trade” iPads and iPhones? Honestly, Nels doesn’t really care at all about this nonsense. He hates how game development has become more business oriented and has targeted Rockstar Games because of this ongoing fiasco. He can pretend that the treatment of the staff at the San Diego office will affect his decision, but if he really did care, he would purchase Red Dead Redemption to ensure that the team that worked on it would get their bonuses. The better the game sells, the more likely that not only will the developer want to keep them, but also more likely that they will be rewarded for their hard work. Returning back to the article, Nels completely ignores the point made by Garnett Lee in ShackNews article that this increase in pressure on the staff may be due to the fact that many developers are being forced to close in these fiscally hard times, instead focusing on comments made by readers that these complaints are nonsense. While employees at Rockstar Games San Diego complain about working conditions, many people, both insides and outside the gaming industry, find themselves out of work and see that these whiners are lucky to have a job to complain about, let alone a steady paycheck.

In the end, that is all this is, a group of employed individuals complaining that they are being mistreated. Seeing how it took them more than five years to release a glitch-ridden title, as many have noted, they should be grateful they still having a job. Nels can pretend to be this victim rights advocate, but you know as well as I do that if he actually cared, he wouldn’t hesitate to pick up this title. What we have here is a gameplay programmer making a political statement about the video game industry. It doesn’t matter what the facts are, he simply wants recognition for a ill-conceived and biased opinion about this ongoing fiasco at Rockstar Games San Diego. Considering that these are fiscally difficult times, I have no use for his ill-informed “elitist” rhetoric. Many of us are unemployed, and we don’t have money to be wasted on political statements.

If Nels Anderson wants to play political games, he better expect myself and others to call him on his nonsense. Unless people are ACTUALLY being mistreated, unless people are ACTUALLY committing suicide, you and the rest of the whiners better SIT DOWN, SHUT UP, AND BE THANKFUL THAT YOU STILL HAVE A JOB, let alone one in the video game industry. Downright pathetic…